MARTIN LUTHER KING (AND OTHER BLACK CIVIL RIGHTS CRUSADERS) OPPOSED ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION....

[Whirlaway]

In 1969 civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy (and Democrat Walter Mondale) protested along the Mexican border the hiring of illegal immigrants......

[Yssup Rider]

What about MLK, Whirlyturd? That's who you mentioned in your LYING HEADLINE.

Why wouldn't people oppose hiring illegal workers? (Except Mitt Romney of course). Especially working class minority leaders in the days of the Civil Rights movement?

Of course that's not what this thread is about, is it?

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

In 1991, Coretta King, who had taken over her husband’s ministry after he was assassinated, wrote a letter to Orrin Hatch in 1991, that was cosigned by many other black leaders that said:

We, the undersigned members of the Black Leadership Forum, write to urge you to postpone introduction of your employer sanctions repeal legislation until we have had an opportunity to report to you what we believe to be the devastating impact the repeal would have on the economic condition of un- and semi-skilled workers—a disproportionate number of whom are African-American and Hispanic; and until we have had the opportunity to propose to you and to our Hispanic brothers and sisters, what we believe could be a number of effective means of eliminating the discrimination occasioned by employer sanctions, without losing the protection sanctions provide for U.S. workers, especially minority workers.

America does not have a labor shortage. With roughly 7 million people unemployed, and double that number discouraged from seeking work, the removal of employer sanctions threatens to add additional U.S. workers to the rolls and drive down wages. Moreover, the repeal of employer sanctions will inevitably add to our social problems and place an unfair burden on the poor in the cities in which most new immigrants cluster—cities which are already suffering housing shortages and insufficient human needs services.

AS I STATED BEFORE YOU ARE A FILTHY LYING POS!!!!

[Whirlaway]

Corretta Scott King (and other black leaders) wouldn't be working against the wishes of her husband on this issue. More importantly, read King's Dream speech again....it is rooted in the American Dream for blacks, not the hispanic-latino-mexican dream.

King was smart enough to know that letting more illegals in to this great nation is against the economic interests of his community.....his wife knew it in 1991 when she and others signed that letter.

But if you have facts that say otherwise; please post.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

What about MLK, Whirlyturd? That's who you mentioned in your LYING HEADLINE.

Why wouldn't people oppose hiring illegal workers? (Except Mitt Romney of course). Especially working class minority leaders in the days of the Civil Rights movement?

Of course that's not what this thread is about, is it?

[Whirlaway]

Your anger is misplaced; Obama is the lying POS.

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

AS I STATED BEFORE YOU ARE A FILTHY LYING POS!!!!

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Corretta Scott King (and other black leaders) wouldn't be working against the wishes of her husband on this issue. More importantly, read King's Dream speech again....it is rooted in the American Dream for blacks, not the hispanic-latino-mexican dream.

King was smart enough to know that letting more illegals in to this great nation is against the economic interests of his community (EVIDENCE PLEASE).....his wife knew it in 1991 when she and others signed that letter. (PROVE THAT)

But if you have facts that say otherwise; please post. (PROVE YOUR BULLSHIT IS TRUE... YOU BROUGHT IT UP, IDIOT!)

Let's see, MLK was shot in 1968. 23 years later, his widow spoke out for him on immigration. And THAT was 23 years ago since!

Makes perfect sense.



For a change, you deliberately lied in your OP and continue to defend that lie now by trying to get ME to prove YOUR bullshit is erroneous and unsupported. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Your post and this thread is utter bullshit. Maybe you can get CC to correct your errors and then explain what your fucking point was to begin with. Black leaders speaking out 20-35 years ago against Hispanic illegals. And...

Poor Whirlyturd. You're TRENDING BULLSHIT AGAIN.

No wonder you were rightfully elected Dipshit of the Year in the Original Official DOTY poll!

[Whirlaway]

Clarence B. Jones, former personal counsel, advisor, close friend, and Dr. King’s speechwriter for the I Have a Dream speech, said that King would vehemently oppose the cause of amnesty for illegal aliens, and would be offended at the comparison of phony rights for lawbreakers to civil rights for oppressed citizen Blacks.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Would-Mar.../dp/B0043RTB2E

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

MARTIN LUTHER KING (AND OTHER BLACK CIVIL RIGHTS CRUSADERS) OPPOSED ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION....

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Corretta Scott King (and other black leaders) wouldn't be working against the wishes of her husband on this issue.

TrendingIdiot, your OP clearly stated MLK himself, not MLK's widow as you are now trying to claim. It specifically stated the following:

"MARTIN LUTHER KING (AND OTHER BLACK CIVIL RIGHTS CRUSADERS) OPPOSED ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION...."

There is nothing left open for interpretation in that statement. It says what it says!

At no time did you offer any conclusive evidence indicating that MLK himself opposed immigration, legal or otherwise. Instead you made a broad based ASSumption that this is how MLK would react in today's world and then got caught in an out n' out lie trying to make it appear to be factual.

This is similar to the lie you told a couple of weeks ago when you clearly stated the following: "I'll take that bet!"

And then you "cut and run" like the pitiful liar and coward that you have become.

Face it TrendingIdiot, you clearly lied and you clearly got busted. Live with it!

TrendingIdiot is a "TRENDING" Liar.

[I B Hankering]

"America must not be overwhelmed.

"Every effort to enact immigration legislation must expect to meet a number of hostile forces and, in particular, two hostile forces of considerable strength.

"One of these is composed of corporation employers who desire to employ physical strength (broad backs) at the lowest possible wage and who prefer a rapidly revolving labor supply at low wages to a regular supply of American wage earners at fair wages.

"The other is composed of racial groups in the United States who oppose all restrictive legislation because they want the doors left open for an influx of their countrymen regardless of the menace to the people of their adopted country."

-- Samuel Gompers, founder and president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and himself an immigrant. From a letter to Congress dated March 19, 1924

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

"America must not be overwhelmed.

"Every effort to enact immigration legislation must expect to meet a number of hostile forces and, in particular, two hostile forces of considerable strength.

"One of these is composed of corporation employers who desire to employ physical strength (broad backs) at the lowest possible wage and who prefer a rapidly revolving labor supply at low wages to a regular supply of American wage earners at fair wages.

"The other is composed of racial groups in the United States who oppose all restrictive legislation because they want the doors left open for an influx of their countrymen regardless of the menace to the people of their adopted country."

-- Samuel Gompers, founder and president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and himself an immigrant. From a letter to Congress dated March 19, 1924

OK, so he said that.

What's your point? In staying relevant to the OP, are you saying that Gompers was black?

(Can't wait to see where this goes now...)

[I B Hankering]

"You ask for information on the immigration question. The American Federation of Labor made an earnest effort to have immigration restricted for at least two years. It also urged that an immigration law be enacted containing the provision that after that period of two years an order can be issued absolutely prohibiting immigration during times of unemployment.

"Congress, however, passed a bill providing that only three percent of any one nationality, based on the foreign population of 1910, could enter the United States. This was not signed by the President. At the next session of Congress the American Federation of Labor will continue to urge the passage of legislation restricting immigration for two years or more.

"Every citizen of the United States should make protest against the influx of people from other countries. It is estimated that there are 5,000,000 unemployed in the country at the present time with the number increasing rapidly. In October 101,000 immigrants arrived in this country; in November, 103,000. According to steamship men 10,000,000 people could be brought into this country in the next ten months if ships were available. This estimate is based on applications for passage already received. So many have moved from Belgium and Germany to Holland that tens of thousands of Hollanders have been forced to leave their country for the United States. When peace is declared between the United States and Austria, floods of residents of these countries will come to America. You can then very well understand that the United States is deeply interested in immigration.

"So many immigrants coming into this country will break down the standard of living of our people. In 1905 when efforts were made in Congress to open the doors to Oriental immigration the American Federation of Labor declared

"'We make no pretense that the exclusion of Chinese can be defended upon a high ideal, ethical ground, but we insist that it is our essential duty to maintain and preserve our physical condition and standard of life and civilization, and thus to assure us the opportunity for the development of our intellectual and moral character. Self-preservation has always been regarded as the first law of nature. It is a principle and a necessity from which we ought not and must not depart.'

"Shutting out from our shores the poor of other nations and races is caused by the law of necessity and self-protection consequent upon our industrial system. Labor does not desire to erect a wall around our country and prevent the poor of other nations from entering. It does declare that America is for Americans alone, but it does insist that there should be and must be some restriction of immigration that will prevent disintegration of American economic standards.

"Those who favor unrestricted immigration care nothing for the people. They are simply desirous of flooding the country with unskilled as well as skilled labor of other lands for the purpose of breaking down American standards. You must not forget that if low wages, long hours of employment and unbearable working conditions are signs of prosperity China and India would be the greatest commercial and industrial countries in the world. They have no strikes in China. It is the Utopia of the “open Shop.“ America, however, where men are free to voice their desires for greater and still greater advancement in economic conditions, is the greatest country on earth. Its people live better than anywhere else, and the trade unions are responsible for maintaining those standards. Those who believe in unrestricted immigration want this country Chinaized. But I firmly believe there are too many right-thinking people in our country to permit such an evil."

Very truly yours,
(s) Samuel Gompers
President,
American Federation of Labor

[This is the text of a letter from Samuel Gompers, president of the Executive Council of the American Federation of Labor, dated April 28, 1921, and addressed to J. H. Reiter at Havorford College, about Congressional legislation to restrict immigration. The correspondence is from the archives of H. Keith Thompson for the Thompson Collection in the Hoover Institution.]

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

OK, so he said that.

What's your point? In staying relevant to the OP, are you saying that Gompers was black?

(Can't wait to see where this goes now...)

That was clearly an attempt by IBIdiot to deflect attention away from the lie told by his first cousin, TrendingIdiot! It was his hope that it would shift the discussion to Gomper's quote and away from his Cousin Trendy's out n' out lie!

It's only a matter of time before the Patriarch himself, LLIdiot, along with Cousins JDIdiot and "Sweet Ass" IIFFY join in on what has now become another Idiot Family clusterfuck. They love to circle their wagons and fire blanks into the air. Perhaps the Matriarch, Hating Kayla will even join in!

The Idiot Klan, errr Clan are uhhhhh, Lying Idiot's.!

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

In 1991, Coretta King, who had taken over her husband’s ministry after he was assassinated, wrote a letter to Orrin Hatch in 1991, that was cosigned by many other black leaders that said:

We, the undersigned members of the Black Leadership Forum, write to urge you to postpone introduction of your employer sanctions repeal legislation until we have had an opportunity to report to you what we believe to be the devastating impact the repeal would have on the economic condition of un- and semi-skilled workers—a disproportionate number of whom are African-American and Hispanic; and until we have had the opportunity to propose to you and to our Hispanic brothers and sisters, what we believe could be a number of effective means of eliminating the discrimination occasioned by employer sanctions, without losing the protection sanctions provide for U.S. workers, especially minority workers.

America does not have a labor shortage. With roughly 7 million people unemployed, and double that number discouraged from seeking work, the removal of employer sanctions threatens to add additional U.S. workers to the rolls and drive down wages. Moreover, the repeal of employer sanctions will inevitably add to our social problems and place an unfair burden on the poor in the cities in which most new immigrants cluster—cities which are already suffering housing shortages and insufficient human needs services.

Here's the article that shits on whirlaturd threads: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/08...n-refor/195680

[wellendowed1911]

Did Coretta Scott King Oppose Immigration Reform?
Conservative Media Mislead To Smear Modern Immigration Reform Movement

Blog ››› August 30, 2013 9:46 AM EDT ››› SOLANGE UWIMANA


266

Conservative media are turning to a 22-year-old letter signed by Coretta Scott King to accuse immigration reform activists of co-opting the civil rights movement. They deceptively argue that the letter proves Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his wife Coretta would have opposed the modern immigration reform movement.

In 1991, Coretta Scott King signed a letter addressed to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that urged him to reconsider a proposal to undercut penalties on companies that employed undocumented workers that were mandated by the 1986 immigration law. King, along with other members of the Black Leadership Forum -- a coalition of leaders from some of the country's preeminent African-American organizations at the time -- wrote that they wanted an opportunity to study the effects such a repeal would have on African-American and Hispanic workers. The letter stated:

We are concerned, Senator Hatch, that your proposed remedy to the employer sanctions-based discrimination, namely, the elimination of employer sanctions, will cause another problem -- the revival of the pre-1986 discrimination against black and brown U.S. and documented workers, in favor of cheap labor -- the undocumented workers. This would undoubtedly exacerbate an already severe economic crisis in communities where there are large numbers of new immigrants.

The letter added: "With roughly 7 million people unemployed, and double that number discouraged from seeking work, the removal of employer sanctions threatens to add additional U.S. workers to the rolls of the unemployed. Additionally, it would add to competition for scarce jobs and drive down wages."

The Black Leadership Forum members were clear that their concerns were centered on discrimination -- against minority workers and against immigrants. The letter said nothing about the larger illegal immigration issue. In fact, it didn't even express disagreement with the 1986 immigration law -- that law granted legal status and a pathway to citizenship to nearly 3 million undocumented immigrants -- which would have been a clear indication that members were against reform.

Instead they wrote that they were invested in "the elimination of the root causes of national origin discrimination under the Immigration Reform & Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), as well as discriminatory impact."

In a 1990 report on the law, the General Accounting Office found that "substantial" and "serious" national original discrimination was introduced as a result of the law, but that it was "not pervasive." GAO wrote that it "believes many employers discriminated because the law's verification system does not provide a simple or reliable method to verify job applicants' eligibility to work." That report formed the basis for a proposal by Hatch and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) to eliminate employer sanctions.

Conservative Media Use Letter To Attack Immigrant Rights' Movement

Conservative media figures are using the Forum letter to claim that immigration reform activists are, as Breitbart.com put it, "trying to co-opt the civil rights messages of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to push immigration reform through Congress," which "seem[s] to be directly contradicting the wishes of the late Dr. King and his wife, Coretta Scott King." Breitbart.com went on to claim that "Coretta Scott King and other black community leaders argued that illegal immigration would have a devastating impact on the black community."

On her radio show, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham echoed that claim, suggesting that immigration rights' activists are conflating the civil rights movement with the immigration reform movement. She read from the letter to illustrate her point, adding, "So in 1991, Coretta Scott King was saying on the issue of amnesty what many of us are saying now."

Ingraham went on to criticize those who spoke in favor of immigration reform at the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington, accusing them of "ruining the moment."



Earlier in the show, Ingraham stated that African-Americans would be the ones who would suffer the most if Congress passed immigration reform, adding that they are "the very people who Dr. Martin Luther King struggled, and ultimately died, to protect and to elevate. That's the sad thing about all of this." She claimed immigration rights' activists were "confused" to conflate the issues of race and civil rights, even though the issues are undeniably intertwined.

Ingraham went on to say:

INGRAHAM: But to conflate the issue of equal opportunity, the desire for a fair application of existing law with the issue of allowing exceptions to the law or indeed amnesty for law breakers, and that's where you find the illegal immigration issue involved here, that's something wild right? But I think the left wants everyone to believe out there that the struggle for amnesty is equivalent to the struggle for racial equality and equal opportunity.

Would The Kings Have Supported Immigration Reform?

So was Coretta Scott King, and by extension Dr. King, anti-immigration reform? It is an obvious stretch to say so -- especially if the only evidence put forth is this 1991 letter.

What undermines the theory even further is that in the letter, the Forum members expressed concerns about employers abusing undocumented workers. "[W]e are concerned that some who support the repeal of employer sanctions are using 'discrimination' as a guise for their desire to abuse undocumented workers and to introduce cheap labor into the U.S. workforce," the members wrote.

That's hardly a position you hear from the anti-immigrant crowd. In fact, it's the exact opposite of what you hear. The Forum members' concern for the plight of the undocumented worker is, if anything, an overriding argument for passing immigration reform that is invoked by supporters.

To be sure, while it is hard to know exactly what the Kings believed on the subject of immigration, there is a wealth of information available today that could inform on what their views might have been.

In her paper, "Civil Rights, Immigrants' Rights, Human Rights: Lessons From The Life And Works Of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.," University of California law professor Jennifer Chacón, who is an expert in immigration law and policy, attempted to do just that.

After quoting from King's "Letter from Birmingham City Jail," she wrote (internal citations removed for clarity):

Migrants who have entered the country without inspection or have overstayed their visas lack lawful immigration status. Because of legal changes over the past decade, they often have no way to normalize their status.[[23]] As long as the law remains unchanged, these individuals will be forced to live in the shadows of society -- illegally. Unsurprisingly, many conversations about the rights of migrants in the United States are thus short-circuited by the question, "What part of 'illegal' don't you understand?" The implication of this question is that all migrants who are out of status or unauthorized are criminal and therefore deserve no rights. This question elides important conversations about why the law is written the way that it is, [[25]] about the role that market demand and historically rooted labor arrangements play in creating the influx of unauthorized migration into the United States, and about the just solution to the problems of a huge and permanent underground population in this country. The question presents the law as immutable and unquestionable and those who break the law as dangerous and undesirable.

King confronted similar problems during the 1950s and 1960s. Those whom he led were challenging unjust laws through peaceful lawbreaking. King's actions remind us that the quest for equality sometimes involves questioning and even defying unjust laws.

Chacón went on to show how King's "teachings point to the need to integrate the struggle for the rights of migrants with the broader struggle for racial justice and nonviolence."

Today's Civil Rights Leaders Favor Reform

There is also enough information available to understand that civil rights leaders of the past -- some of whom were Dr. King's contemporaries -- and those of today support reform.

In an interview with Fusion, Clarence Jones, who helped draft King's "I Have A Dream" speech, said:

JONES: The civil rights fight of this era, and people try to force me to put words into the mouth of Martin King, they try to get me to say that if Martin King was alive, he would be in favor of same-sex marriage. Maybe he would and maybe he wouldn't.

But what I can say for a certainty is that he was so totally committed to assuring that every human being, every human personality would be absolutely treated equally before the law. Secondly, we should find a basis on the basis of love -- listen to me -- love, compassion, fairness, and elementary decency to structure a pathway to citizenship that will enable our Hispanic brothers and sisters and their families to achieve the full benefit of the rights that citizens have.

Martin Luther King III has cited his father's teachings to editorialize for immigration reform. In a 2011 CNN op-ed criticizing Alabama's restrictive anti-immigrant law, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka and King wrote:

"Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application," King also wrote in "Letter From Birmingham Jail," where he was imprisoned for nonviolent civil disobedience. Much about our nation's immigration practices echoes that observation.

In a 2011 article, the Black Christian News reported that Rev. Bernice King, Dr. King's daughter, planned to work with the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference on immigration reform.

Other civil rights leaders, including National Urban League president Marc Morial, NAACP president Ben Jealous, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), and others have expressed support for immigration reform.

Immigration And Civil Rights Movements Are Interlinked

In an August 26 article on the anniversary of the March on Washington, the Associated Press explained how the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which radically altered immigration law, "happened in part because of a hunger for change and equality created by the civil rights movement":

It was with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that the federal government radically altered immigration policy, opening America's doors to the world after decades of keeping them shut to entire geographic regions. That decision planted the seeds for the demographics explosion the country is living in now, a shift that historians say happened in part because of a hunger for change and equality created by the civil rights movement.

The movement "broke through the whole aura of political stagnation that was created by the McCarthy era and the Cold War, and allowed us to imagine another" world, said Mark Naison, professor of African-American studies and history at Fordham University in New York. "It was the civil rights movement ... that broke through the logjam and allowed people to talk about real issues in our domestic lives."

Immigration activist Renata Teodoro, who came here from Brazil as a child, studied the tactics of the civil rights movement and incorporated them into her own activism. The Boston resident has long been a proponent of granting legal status to immigrants who, like her, were brought to the U.S. as children.

The Civil Rights movement, she said, humanized the issues of the day, and by doing so, "that changed the culture, that's what changed a lot of hearts and minds."

Ingraham Has Spent 1963 March Commemoration Engaging In Race-Baiting

Ingraham's shallow commentary on the interconnected history of the civil rights and immigration reform movements is unsurprising. She has contributed little that is useful to understanding either issue, exceling instead in demonizing immigrants and attacking those who support reform to accusing progressives of co-opting civil rights.

In a particularly nasty segment that was widely condemned, she interrupted comments by Rep. Lewis with the sound of a gunshot -- oblivious to the institutional and vigilante violence that terrorized civil rights leaders of that era daily. She later dismissed the criticism, saying she was just having "some fun" and "teasing."

Ingraham has also repeatedly promoted the divisive rhetoric of anti-immigrant nativists under the guise of being concerned for African-American workers. It's not a stretch to say that this is hardly a message or a movement Coretta Scott King would have endorsed

[Yssup Rider]

So, WE, it looks like Whir-LIE-turd has not done his homework again.

NOR has he owned up to his massive lies, for which he's been busted all day.

In fact, he even had to get his BUTT buddy IBIdiot to try and I deflect the segment.

IBIduot still hasn't explained how Gompers is connected to Coretta Scott King, other of course, than their both being black...